not so fast

I'm all for religious freedom. You talk to god, worship god, think about god, or not, as you wish.

 I'm all for defactory freedom too. You pee in your toilet, the bushes, the woods, behind a tree, but don't do it in public. We really don't want to see it. Same for sex. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. But don't do it in public. I don't want to see it and don't want to hear about.  I don't want graphic illustrations of it on the walls. 

And the same goes for religion. Do it in your head, do it in your church, at home, in the woods, but I have a right to not be exposed to it. I assure you, god is okay with this. God doesn't need you to paste images or icons in public places. YOU may need that, but not god. 

So don't tell me about being a man about it and putting up with it. Religion is a private thing. Anything else is a threesome-- like megachurches, evangelical TV, forcing one belief's rules on others.  God doesn't work that way Alex.  She doesn't need the glory.

Me. I pray in a steam room at the gym a few days a week. Then I shave, then I shower.  But I don't expect you to do that.

I've thought about this a lot. Here's an article I wrote a few years ago:

Creating a Set of Laws for All Religions, Like Asimov's Laws of Robotics

by Rob Kall (760 articles, 3847 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1640 comments) on Friday, April 20, 2007 at 2:05:08 PM
 

The 3 Laws of Religiotics

To Rob:

I agree with you, too - on some parts.

These are the points you make in your posting linked to above:

1) Any religion must respect other religions which follow this rule. In other words, if your religion respects other religions then it deserves the respect of other
religions. Religions which do NOT respect other religions do not deserve respect.

Does “respect” mean they can’t disagree with each other? True respect would mean that they are llowed to disagree with each other all they want. So what, if every one of them says it is the only way to God? Big deal! I don’t want to root out Islam for that. I just don’t want them over here taking my country over. They can say and preach that all they want. Just don’t encourage your members to kill others or to actually harm them in any way.

2-No religion is better than any other religion which follows rule one. Certain religions may be better for an individual, family, tribe or community, but this does not apply to all people, not in a neighborhood, town, city, state or nation.

No objections here. But I also have no objection to any religion teaching that it is the only way to God. We will all very unmistakably find out one way or the other which one is right - or whether any of them are right. Again: So what?

3-No religion has the right to force or insist that its values and rules of culture and behavior be required of people who do not sign on, buy into or agree with that religion-- whether the person is a member of the religion or not. No problem here, either - but why does that mean they wan’t proselytize as much as they want. Again: so what if they do? On the other hand, a specific church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc. has the right to set requirements for its members. Of course they do.

These three seem to be the most basic to me. I realize that some of the sects in some of the biggest religions might reject some of these rules.

Here are some additional rules I think worth considering.

4) assuming rule number 2, no religion should set rules that aim to maximally expand their umbers. Why not? What’s the big deal? As long as they don’t do it by force or by force of state
law - where is the problem?

5) Evangelism that aims at destroying other cultures is unacceptable. I agree without
reservation. on this point as stated. But, if as a result of people voluntarily converting in large numbers their attitudes - and
thereby their culture - should change, what’s wrong with that? Evangelism that does not take precautions for communication of diseases is unacceptable. What does that mean??

The real point in all of this: Almost every European settler who came over here was a Christian. Many of them came here because they weren’t allowed to practice their particular brand of Christianity in their home country. To make sure this wouldn’t happen here, they added the first
amendment to the Constitution. As a result, they allowed other religions and cultures to come here and live and preach on an equal footing. Now their own tolerance is being turned against them.

Some people believe they should not be allowed to even voice their opinions on moral issues in public anymore, just because they “disagree.” Example: The homosexual lobby.

That is not only wrong, it is the height of arrogance, ungratefulness, and - yes, intolerance.

(The last sentence is not directed at Rob. Only at “the lobby”).

Alex

by Alex Wallenwein (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments) on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 1:06:21 PM
 

Public religion

It was stated that:

"The use of the courts to deny a group that disagrees with you the right to the free exercise of their religion is absolutely not a right protected by the Constitution."

Just when has any court ruled like that? Every court decision (save one at the SCOTUS level) l know about has constantly told government to stay out of religion and leave religion entirely up to the individual and to the spiritual advisors the individual chooses. There has never been a ruling telling religion to retract itself from the public arena; save that one.

The one court "mistake" was in the Gobitis decision that allowed the state to punish Jehovah Witness kids for not repeating the Pledge of Allegiance. That was overturned three years later by the Barnette decision that acknowledged the right of the Witnesses to pledge allegiance to God, not to the state.

Starting in 1940 with the Cantwell decision, the court has constantly placed restrictions on government, just as it should to comply with the First Amendment.

by tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments) on Friday, April 20, 2007 at 2:56:48 PM
 

I Agree With Rob On This One

At least, for the most part.

Still I must add, it depends on what one's definition of God is, as well!

I, for one, do not equate God and religion, necessarily. Some Christians in this country (I call them Christianists) feel the need to bash others over their heads with a interpretation of scripture that is twisted to say the very least. and codify it on a national and state level. 

I don't have a problem with faithful believers in anything as long as I don't have to live by their belief system.

God, as I understand it, gave us free-will. It is not for the Christianists to take what God has given away, is it?

I am not personally offended by any religious symbol. I don't particularly want to pay for it to be displayed by any government to which I am oblidged to pay taxes, but I am not offended by its presence, anywhere

There is one thing we can all be sure of: Fanatics, by their very nature, will always go too far, eventually. That holds true of the Christianists and the non-smoking fanatics as well. They will always step over a line, and find themselves discredited by their own goofy, obnoxious behavior.

People will endure only so much, and then they will fire back, so to speak.

Religious folks have a right to knock on my door if they feel so inclined. I have a right not to answer it.

and so it goes......

by wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments) on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 10:35:15 AM